Wednesday, May 13, 2015

A day after filibuster on TPP, Senate Dems fold like a cheap card table *Updated*

Less than a day after blocking the Obama administration's path to a
secretive trade deal, Senate Democrats have accepted an offer put forth
by Republicans. The Democrats, led by Senator Ron Wyden and Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York, came to accept the deal after personal
lobbying from President Obama.

Some Democrats believed that a
package of four trade bills would move along together, thus ensuring
that Obama couldn't obtain fast-track authority without enforcement
measures, but they ended up backing down on this as well. A Huffington Post
story quotes Senator Sherrod Brown justifying the decision: "I
understand that all four aren't going to be together exactly the way I
want it, I understand that, but I can read votes. I also think that
nobody saw us being successful yesterday three days out. And people have
strong feelings about the customs enforcement and people have strong
feelings about taking care of workers."

The new deal would allow the administration to begin negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which has been criticized by labor unions and environmental activists. The economist Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote
that, "These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and
intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to
countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions."

Gadfly also takes them apart over it. Looks like we're back to being "sanctimonious purists". I'm more convinced every day that we don't have the best government money can buy, we have the absolute worst. And I would simply ask, since somebody else already mentioned that TPP is about the next president and not just this one: how is Hillary Clinton going to be any better on it for anybody on the left side of the Democratic party?

The way Clinton and her advisers are thinking about this, apparently,
is that there’s nothing forcing her to take a controversial stand, on
trade or anything else. As long as no one who appears to be an overly
serious threat is competing for support among the party’s various
factions, then there’s no percentage in volunteering opinions that will
inevitably create some ill will and give the media some conflict to
write about.

So instead, she goes around telling Democratic audiences that she’d do even more for immigrants
than Obama has, or that she supports alternative sentencing for drug
crimes. This is like telling Republicans you believe in God.

But in fact, the Clinton people have the whole thing backward. This
glide path toward the nomination that they assume they’re on isn’t an
opportunity to hide from controversy; it’s an opportunity to show you
can lead, clearly and thoughtfully. And that’s because, even if you get
through the primaries unscathed, you’re going to have to confront your
biggest vulnerability among general-election voters, which is this idea
that Clinton does only what’s expedient.

[...]

Clinton’s patronizing evasion on the trade deal, on the other hand,
reinforces that impression. And if she waits until the summer of 2016 to
actually choose sides on anything contentious, it may well be too late
to turn that perception around. Remember that Clinton is trying to win a
third term for her party, which is an exceptionally difficult task
under any circumstances.

There was an irony this week in watching Obama and Clinton, once again
the two-headed hydra of Democratic politics, navigating their way
through a decision point for their party. When it came to trade, he was
direct, genuine and competitive. She was cautious, noncommittal, playing
not to lose.

That was precisely the contrast between them in 2008, and it didn’t
work out for Clinton then. That Obama isn’t running against her doesn’t
mean it will ultimately work out better this time.

1 comment:

This is why I stopped calling myself a Democrat years ago: It seems like the parties will argue over abortion and guns, but when it counts - when it's something that involves corporate power - they are guaranteed to wind up siding with the transnationals every single time.

It's something Chomsky has noted time and time again: There can be lively debate along a fairly narrow spectrum in our system.

But you start talking about corporate personhood or about how these trade deals create an unelected and unaccountable private world government (and if you look at the trade courts, they DO) and you will be labeled a fringe nut.